FREE SPEECH FOR STUDENTS?

FREE speech took it on the chin when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
the case of an Alaska high school student who held up a banner as the
Olympic torch was run through Juneau in 2002.

As part of a prank Joseph Frederick claims was aimed at getting him TV
coverage - not unlike some of those fans at ball games who hold up a
sign to get their 10 seconds of fame - he showed a banner that read
"Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

His high school principal, arguing that this proclaimed drug use - a
bong is a device used in drug-taking - suspended the young man for 10
days. The Supreme Court, in overturning a federal appeals court ruling
in the case, sided with the principal.

The ruling, though applying only to speech advocating drug use, is
disturbing nonetheless because it extends the reach of a school's
power to limit speech beyond the school yard and into the public square.

Although Mr. Frederick was at a school-sanctioned event when he showed
the banner, it stretches the rights of principals and other school
officials to suggest their influence exists beyond the school property.

While in a school, students do not enjoy all the rights and freedoms
that apply to adults. Schools can restrict what they wear, what they
read, what they say. But what about at an event involving the school,
but not on school property? Then the issue becomes less clear-cut.

In this ruling, the Supreme Court made some interesting
suggestions.

Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, said that the assumption the
banner would be seen as promoting drug use was "plainly a reasonable
one."

Really? Leaving aside the fact that the young student says the message
is nonsense - many would agree with that - and one that he saw on a
snowboard, does it advocate drug use in the same way, let's say, a
sign stating "legalize marijuana" would?

Justice Roberts added that schools are not required by the First
Amendment to tolerate the expression by students of such supposed
pro-drug sentiments. Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying it
can't be seriously suggested that the First Amendment encompasses a
student's right to speak in public schools.

But what about outside the school, even if at a school-sanctioned or
sponsored event?

Fortunately the court, in making plain this ruling is limited to
speech advocating drug use, refrained from embracing a wider notion of
censorship in schools.

But the ruling is nonetheless of concern both in its restriction of
First Amendment rights, and in its attempt to make free speech
topic-specific. As Justice John Paul Stevens suggested, what if Mr.
Frederick had a sign saying "Wine Sips 4 Jesus"? Would that be viewed
as pro-alcohol use and pro-religion, both of which might breach school
protocols?

No doubt the banner was insulting to some, and stupid to others. Many
educators and parents might agree with the principal's actions because
of the drug reference.

But now that the Supreme Court has ruled on curbing students' speech
rights on drugs, what is next?